Welcome Guest
You last visited December 11, 2016, 5:30 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

# Wave pattern analysis and lottery draw histories

Topic closed. 76 replies. Last post 6 years ago by billybouy.

 Page 3 of 6

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 8, 2011, 10:40 am - IP Logged

This post is not meant to disrespect CARBOB.  It's understandable why he mentioned Benford's Law when he did, by reference.  However, given what research has revealed about Benford's Law applied to lottery draws, I think it is important to point out that Benford's Law does NOT correlate with lottery results!

I'm surprised you would not have clicked back on this and included a mention of it in your reply to CARBOB.

In case the caption above is too faded to read on your monitor, it reads, "This graph shows several examples of data sets from the Spaniard National Institute of Statistics that follow Benford's logarithmic law.  Data from the lottery, however, is random and uniform.  Credit: Jesus Torres, et al

http://www.physorg.com/news98015219.html

CARBOB says,

"The Spainiard disproves nothing about Benfords law.

I'm surprised you didn't go here http://www.dspguide.com/ch34/8.htm "

Please read the physorg article again.  The data from the Spaniard National Institute of Statistics shows clearly how certain data follows Benford's Law.  If you look at the small diamonds in their graph forming a horizontal line, you will see that THE LOTTERY DOES NOT FOLLOW BENFORD'S LAW!

In there, you will find,

"The Benford's Law Compliance Theorem tells us that (b) will follow Benford's law very closely, while (d) will follow it very poorly. That is, PDF(f) falls to near zero before f=1 for the income tax numbers, but does not for the RNG numbers."

Since both your source AND my source agree that the uniform distributions formed by RNGs and lottery results do not conform to Benford's Law, do you think we could drop this issue?

--Jimmy4164

ORLANDO, FLORIDA
United States
Member #4924
June 3, 2004
5914 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 8, 2011, 1:15 pm - IP Logged

You are correct, I misread the article by Steve Smith, I thought they were in disagreement. My apology.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 9, 2011, 1:11 am - IP Logged

You are correct, I misread the article by Steve Smith, I thought they were in disagreement. My apology.

No apology required CARBOB.  Regardless of any differences we have in number theory, anyone who is willing to admit mistakes scores high in my book!

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3986 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 10, 2011, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

No apology required CARBOB.  Regardless of any differences we have in number theory, anyone who is willing to admit mistakes scores high in my book!

Jimmy

RL

San Angelo, Texas
United States
Member #1097
January 31, 2003
1394 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 3:57 pm - IP Logged

Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand?

Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of
'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are
ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch.

However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves.

I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop
a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3986 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 11, 2011, 4:56 pm - IP Logged

Don't you guys think it's time for you to put aside your personal animosities
and get back to the question at hand?

Personally, I'd appreciate some constructive comments regarding the role of
'substitution' as it applies to lottery strategies.

If the odds of this or that happening for everything is the general rule,
then we should just mail a check to our state lottery and go watch TV.

If, on the other hand, there is good reason to believe that, despite the odds, there are
ways to beat the lottery, then we should pursue them, as best we can.

I've been alive for a long, long time. I'm fully aware that people are always
doing what they believe is in their best self-interest.

Expecting strangers at a lottery forum to come together and do something
constructive for the benefit of all players is probably a big stretch.

However, I could be wrong. Maybe there are a few folks among the +100,000 members
here who would join in and do something that benefits more than themselves.

I've been using 'substitution' to guide my lottery plays for years.
While I've had some some wins, I think my techniques could be improved.
Not seeing the forest because of the trees is a factor in many situations.

Pick 3 is a pari-mutual game.

It sure would be worthwhile if several players would join together and develop
a strategy that can generate more wins than losses.

What do you think??

Bobby623

I would agree but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole basket.  Until the trolls are stopped

not much can be done.  Maybe private rooms/threads or giving the person who starts the post the

ability to ban certain members from posting within the thread or deleating unwanted junk.  Don't

know if it could be done but one can hope.

RL

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 12, 2011, 10:02 am - IP Logged

Bobby623

I would agree but it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole basket.  Until the trolls are stopped

not much can be done.  Maybe private rooms/threads or giving the person who starts the post the

ability to ban certain members from posting within the thread or deleating unwanted junk.  Don't

know if it could be done but one can hope.

RL

RL:  Those might be helpful but I think I'd hate to see it unless the unwanted junk involved the type of interchanges that lead to posts being deleted and threads shut down and locked.  I use the block feature to cut down on the static provided by visionetc and Jimmie, but if I didn't have a paid membershiip I'd just skip over their posts and ignore them.

I don't see the problem to be so much in their posts as in the consequences carried within the responses they provoke.  You've had a good thread shut down, locked and partially deleted as an illustration of how that can come to pass.  It probably won't be the last to end for the same reasons.

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3986 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 12, 2011, 4:29 pm - IP Logged

Josephus

Provocation seems to be the culprit here, many times it causes a reaction that leads to many unwanted

post which often have no bearing on the topic.  There are many who can't just state some bit of information

that they believe to be pertinent but have to make it personal in some way.  This then takes on a life of

it's own and ends up a trashing contest.  The thing that gets me is that the same people always seem to

be the catalyst in preaching the same old thing over and over thinking they must be misunderstood.  I

once read that repeating oneself over and over was a sign of a mental illness.  The last time I checked I

was still in the USA where I still "at least I think I do,"  have the freedom to think for myself.  If math could

could be used to pick the correct numbers then there would be no lottery, however if one can use a little

math in the quest then whats the problem.  Anyone that has ever studied the drawings has seen patterns

or other data that they think might help but this does not mean that what they find will help with every

dwaw until the end of time.  One day at a time, one draw at a time, that's my new motto.

RL

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 13, 2011, 9:44 am - IP Logged

Josephus

Provocation seems to be the culprit here, many times it causes a reaction that leads to many unwanted

post which often have no bearing on the topic.  There are many who can't just state some bit of information

that they believe to be pertinent but have to make it personal in some way.  This then takes on a life of

it's own and ends up a trashing contest.  The thing that gets me is that the same people always seem to

be the catalyst in preaching the same old thing over and over thinking they must be misunderstood.  I

once read that repeating oneself over and over was a sign of a mental illness.  The last time I checked I

was still in the USA where I still "at least I think I do,"  have the freedom to think for myself.  If math could

could be used to pick the correct numbers then there would be no lottery, however if one can use a little

math in the quest then whats the problem.  Anyone that has ever studied the drawings has seen patterns

or other data that they think might help but this does not mean that what they find will help with every

dwaw until the end of time.  One day at a time, one draw at a time, that's my new motto.

RL

Hi RL.  Thanks for the reply.  The provocations give the appearance of being deliberate, protracted and usually successful.  They've applied the Lucy/Football method and discovered the best of us can't resist one more try.

I don't know whether Lucy's mentally ill or not but she's found a weak spot and knows how to exploit it.

A lot of people all over LP are trying to find ways of applying math to lottery draws and some of them seem to succeed well enough to keep them trying.  Probably you are correct that math can't carry a person pursuing that route all the way to the end of the rainbow.  Too many brilliant minds right here on LP, countless hours of trial and experimentation, more devotion to thinking it through by too many people capable of actually thinking would almost certainly led the process nearer success than it seems to have come.

Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look.  We've hopped over the fences to believe it can be beaten at all, but there's a limit to how many of the things we already know we're willing to give up to do our snipe hunting beyond the next fence.

That's one of the things I admire about Pumpi.  He doesn't have any compunctions about admitting he's looking over the next fence, even if he doesn't appear to have the means of climbing over for a closer look.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 13, 2011, 11:16 pm - IP Logged

Hi RL.  Thanks for the reply.  The provocations give the appearance of being deliberate, protracted and usually successful.  They've applied the Lucy/Football method and discovered the best of us can't resist one more try.

I don't know whether Lucy's mentally ill or not but she's found a weak spot and knows how to exploit it.

A lot of people all over LP are trying to find ways of applying math to lottery draws and some of them seem to succeed well enough to keep them trying.  Probably you are correct that math can't carry a person pursuing that route all the way to the end of the rainbow.  Too many brilliant minds right here on LP, countless hours of trial and experimentation, more devotion to thinking it through by too many people capable of actually thinking would almost certainly led the process nearer success than it seems to have come.

Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look.  We've hopped over the fences to believe it can be beaten at all, but there's a limit to how many of the things we already know we're willing to give up to do our snipe hunting beyond the next fence.

That's one of the things I admire about Pumpi.  He doesn't have any compunctions about admitting he's looking over the next fence, even if he doesn't appear to have the means of climbing over for a closer look.

"Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look."

At the risk of being labeled "provocative" again, I must ask [again,] what is it that remains to be done?  The last time I questioned RL's ability to outperform mere mortals by a factor of 11 in lotto, he replied with even bigger claims.  If there is any lottery player here who would NOT  be satisfied with winning \$1100 on the same plays that a QP player only wins \$100, I would really like to hear from them!

It seems very inconsistent to me when you go on as you did above here about the trials and tribulations of your quest for the Holy Grail when everyone at LotteryPost.com has been assured repeatedly that it is safe and secure in Missouri!

To other readers:  Does this post appear to you to be another "deliberate and protracted provocation," or a legitimate question?

NOTE:  The 'question' is, "How do you reconcile RL's spectacular claims of an 11 to 1 edge in lotto with your [and his] ongoing discussions of frustrations over your quests for winning systems?"

--Jimmy4164

Dallas, Texas
United States
Member #4549
May 2, 2004
1739 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 12:12 am - IP Logged

"Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look."

At the risk of being labeled "provocative" again, I must ask [again,] what is it that remains to be done?  The last time I questioned RL's ability to outperform mere mortals by a factor of 11 in lotto, he replied with even bigger claims.  If there is any lottery player here who would NOT  be satisfied with winning \$1100 on the same plays that a QP player only wins \$100, I would really like to hear from them!

It seems very inconsistent to me when you go on as you did above here about the trials and tribulations of your quest for the Holy Grail when everyone at LotteryPost.com has been assured repeatedly that it is safe and secure in Missouri!

To other readers:  Does this post appear to you to be another "deliberate and protracted provocation," or a legitimate question?

NOTE:  The 'question' is, "How do you reconcile RL's spectacular claims of an 11 to 1 edge in lotto with your [and his] ongoing discussions of frustrations over your quests for winning systems?"

--Jimmy4164

Jimbooble-looble!!!!

Thirty to forty years ago somebody invented the idea of repetitious phrases, packaged it in a doll called "Chatty Cathy" and made a mint. You remind me that that idea is not a new concept. Someone posts something you can't comprehend, and you immediately go in to the "Chatty Cathy" stage, posting the same questions over and over.

You should consider throwing out your old 'To Do List' since no one is answering those.

How about some positive, uplifting posts on the investigation of numbers you haven't done?

My day was spent rewriting, and crunching numbers while registering the boat trailer and playing with my dog. Oh, I also visited the neighbor. True. I have people in my life who actually like me!

Watch for a new post soon. Trying to decide whether to call it "The Anatomy of Base Math in Digital Systems" or "Better Decisions Are A Part of Growing Up and Putting Your Chatty Cathy Away."

Which do you think would be better?

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 2:07 am - IP Logged

Jimbooble-looble!!!!

Thirty to forty years ago somebody invented the idea of repetitious phrases, packaged it in a doll called "Chatty Cathy" and made a mint. You remind me that that idea is not a new concept. Someone posts something you can't comprehend, and you immediately go in to the "Chatty Cathy" stage, posting the same questions over and over.

You should consider throwing out your old 'To Do List' since no one is answering those.

How about some positive, uplifting posts on the investigation of numbers you haven't done?

My day was spent rewriting, and crunching numbers while registering the boat trailer and playing with my dog. Oh, I also visited the neighbor. True. I have people in my life who actually like me!

Watch for a new post soon. Trying to decide whether to call it "The Anatomy of Base Math in Digital Systems" or "Better Decisions Are A Part of Growing Up and Putting Your Chatty Cathy Away."

Which do you think would be better?

"Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look."

At the risk of being labeled "provocative" again, I must ask [again,] what is it that remains to be done?  The last time I questioned RL's ability to outperform mere mortals by a factor of 11 in lotto, he replied with even bigger claims.  If there is any lottery player here who would NOT  be satisfied with winning \$1100 on the same plays that a QP player only wins \$100, I would really like to hear from them!

It seems very inconsistent to me when you go on as you did above here about the trials and tribulations of your quest for the Holy Grail when everyone at LotteryPost.com has been assured repeatedly that it is safe and secure in Missouri!

To other readers:  Does this post appear to you to be another "deliberate and protracted provocation," or a legitimate question?

NOTE:  The 'question' is, "How do you reconcile RL's spectacular claims of an 11 to 1 edge in lotto with your [and his] ongoing discussions of frustrations over your quests for winning systems?"

--Jimmy4164

United States
Member #105312
January 29, 2011
435 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 9:26 am - IP Logged

"Which might mean it can't be done, as the preachers insist, or it might mean we all just know too much too soon to allow ourselves to look where we know we'd be foolish to look."

At the risk of being labeled "provocative" again, I must ask [again,] what is it that remains to be done?  The last time I questioned RL's ability to outperform mere mortals by a factor of 11 in lotto, he replied with even bigger claims.  If there is any lottery player here who would NOT  be satisfied with winning \$1100 on the same plays that a QP player only wins \$100, I would really like to hear from them!

It seems very inconsistent to me when you go on as you did above here about the trials and tribulations of your quest for the Holy Grail when everyone at LotteryPost.com has been assured repeatedly that it is safe and secure in Missouri!

To other readers:  Does this post appear to you to be another "deliberate and protracted provocation," or a legitimate question?

NOTE:  The 'question' is, "How do you reconcile RL's spectacular claims of an 11 to 1 edge in lotto with your [and his] ongoing discussions of frustrations over your quests for winning systems?"

--Jimmy4164

Hi Jimmy:  I decided to read one of your posts despite the fact I use the block feature to avoid doing it overall.  I don't intend to make a habit of it, but I'll do my best to treat this one as the legitimate question you pretend it is.

Jimmy's question:  "What remains to be done?"

Answer:  Anything I choose to do within my capacity to do it.  Anything other LP members choose to do within their individual capacities to do whatever it might be.  Many of us here are pursuing what you refer to as 'Holy Grails', including you.  The fact that your holy grail is nothing more than a long series of attempts to dissuade others from pursuing theirs only affirms it's a holy grail to you and that you're as obsessed with it as anyone here might be obsessed with his/her own choice of holy grails.  Yours gives the appearance of an attempt to control what others do, the way others think, and to disrupt and distract attempts by others to discuss what you've decided is unworthy of them.

That's how you differ from most of the other posters here.  Your demands for answers and proofs merely confirm that you've measured what others choose to do against with their time and energies and compared them with what you choose to do with yours and found others wanting and yourself worthy of being emulated.

This has nothing to do with RL.  RL is just a person posting here, putting forward harmless ideas many other posters value.  Your repeated statements of the value you put on what RL says, or what anyone else here says, are only that.  Your own judgements based on a set of values that are illustrated conclusively in your history of posts.

Those judgements and values you've demonstrated provide ample evidence for anyone reading them to judge whether they're something admirable and worth emulating.

The answer to your second question:  I don't need to reconcile anything RL might have posted anywhere, any time with anything else.  That's for RL to concern himself with.  RL, you, me, all of us occasionally contradict ourselves and our ideas evolve as our experience expands.  Self-contradiction can be innocent and it certainly isn't worth obsessing over for most of us.

But most of us aren't pursuing that particular holy grail.

United States
Member #93947
July 10, 2010
2180 Posts
Offline
 Posted: April 14, 2011, 4:46 pm - IP Logged

Hi Jimmy:  I decided to read one of your posts despite the fact I use the block feature to avoid doing it overall.  I don't intend to make a habit of it, but I'll do my best to treat this one as the legitimate question you pretend it is.

Jimmy's question:  "What remains to be done?"

Answer:  Anything I choose to do within my capacity to do it.  Anything other LP members choose to do within their individual capacities to do whatever it might be.  Many of us here are pursuing what you refer to as 'Holy Grails', including you.  The fact that your holy grail is nothing more than a long series of attempts to dissuade others from pursuing theirs only affirms it's a holy grail to you and that you're as obsessed with it as anyone here might be obsessed with his/her own choice of holy grails.  Yours gives the appearance of an attempt to control what others do, the way others think, and to disrupt and distract attempts by others to discuss what you've decided is unworthy of them.

That's how you differ from most of the other posters here.  Your demands for answers and proofs merely confirm that you've measured what others choose to do against with their time and energies and compared them with what you choose to do with yours and found others wanting and yourself worthy of being emulated.

This has nothing to do with RL.  RL is just a person posting here, putting forward harmless ideas many other posters value.  Your repeated statements of the value you put on what RL says, or what anyone else here says, are only that.  Your own judgements based on a set of values that are illustrated conclusively in your history of posts.

Those judgements and values you've demonstrated provide ample evidence for anyone reading them to judge whether they're something admirable and worth emulating.

The answer to your second question:  I don't need to reconcile anything RL might have posted anywhere, any time with anything else.  That's for RL to concern himself with.  RL, you, me, all of us occasionally contradict ourselves and our ideas evolve as our experience expands.  Self-contradiction can be innocent and it certainly isn't worth obsessing over for most of us.

But most of us aren't pursuing that particular holy grail.

Joey says, "Yours [Jimmy4164's Holy Grail] gives the appearance of an attempt to control what others do, the way others think, and to disrupt and distract attempts by others to discuss what you've decided is unworthy of them."

Before pontificating on your assessment of my motives for posting what I do here, it would behoove you to look back and see what I've clearly stated my motives are.  Here are just a few examples:

However, the strongest motivations for my positions here are outlined in this post:

"...If the kinds of fallacious reasoning you use was restricted to lottery play, it would be of little consequence because it does not cause you to lose any more money than the majority of people who select their numbers using random methods.  However, this is not the case.  People make errors of judgment in many responsible positions every day based on flawed logical conclusions similar to those that keep you believing that you have control over your chances of winning the lottery, when you do not. For example, people who reason the way you do serve on juries and parole boards and have too often wrongly condemned innocent people because of their inability to correctly interpret evidence data.

"The underlying causes of this kind of fallacious reasoning is not the result of a lack of general intelligence.  To the contrary, even medical doctors in emergency rooms have been documented making tragically wrong diagnoses under the influence of their erroneous belief that, for example, a patient with a certain condition was 'DUE' in their triage because none had yet showed up that night, and they were accustomed to 6 or more by that time.

"What I hope is that others who happen by here will be moved to consider what I'm saying, and do more research.  Here is an article that approaches this from a psychological perspective.  I hope you'll read it:

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sj361/p1369.pdf

And for those new to this thread, here's Don Catlin's article:

--Jimmy4164"

...continued in the posting

P.S.  Now, watch the system software sellers and their associates try to bury this!

United States
Member #59354
March 13, 2008
3986 Posts
Offline
 Posted: May 13, 2011, 2:25 pm - IP Logged

Josephus

I have been doing a little thinking into the time factor and then the idea came to me about the computers

internal clock.  My state uses a RNG to select it's numbers and on several occasions I have noticed that

both the P-5 and P-6 numbers were almost the same.  I also thought about some of the RNG test that I

had performed over the years looking for times when the RNG produced to like sets.  I have found that

when the internal clock or ticks rolls around to the next digit such as 1999999 to 2000000 that a series

of 3 or 4 sets will be identical.   Using this information a person might be able to calculate a small time

frame when to play.  This might also explain why your method produces in backtest but misses in the next

draw.  If you could track the time in ticks and then play at a rollover event then, Well maybe it could help.

I think all Keno games are RNG's. Just throwing this out thinking one could use the past times to calculate

when these rollovers occure.

RL

 Page 3 of 6